Productivity in phonology

Winter 2011

LING 451/551

“Generative model”

• Rules generate representations from more

abstract ones

• Top-down, decompositional model

• Works pretty well for syntax

– NP (Det) (Adj) N (PP)

• Seems to work pretty well for phonology

– Turkish /sebeb/ [sebep]

Generative morphology?

• washable, lovable, thinkable

• Hayes: –able Affixation (p. 109)

– Verb + ǝbǝl Adj

– Verb + ǝbǝl means “able to be verbed”

• Bottom-up, formative model

2 problems with this approach

• –ize Affixation

– ǝ(C) ]{N,Adj} + ajz V

– {N,Adj} + ajz means „cause to become imbued with

{N,Adj}‟

– terror, terrorize; feudal, feudalize

• Can‟t be added to all Adj or N

– horror, *horrorize; futile, *futilize

• Derived words don‟t always mean what they‟re

supposed to

– real, realize „cause to become real‟?

• I realized I was wrong.

• („came to understand‟)

Productivity

• “Rules of derivational morphology commonly

differ in their productivity, which may be defined

as their capacity to apply in novel

circumstances” (Hayes p. 113)

• 5.9: -ical vs. -like

– -ical • alphabetical, farcical, quizzical, paradoxical

• but ??attitudical, porchical, breezical, Rolodexical, violinical.

“Evidently, words like alphabetical...are memorized entities”

• “Affixation does not by itself license the existence of a word.”

– cf. –like “applies open-endedly”

Derivation vs. inflection

• Hayes‟ approach to inflection

• Bottom-up, spell-out of inflectional features

• X Xz

[V, +pres, +3, +sg]

• runs [rʌnz], brings [brɪŋz] • what about

– say [seɪ], says [sɛz], *[seɪz]

– do [du], does [dʌz], *[duz]

– have, has [hæz], *[hævz]

• Blocking: lexically listed forms block synonymous

derived form

Derivation vs. inflection

• Derivation generally less productive – Adj + ity abstract N „having Adj quality‟

• stupidity, scarcity

• *wickedity, *hoarsity

• but productive with –al adjectives: grammaticality,

nationality

• Degrees of productivity among derivation – cf. Adj + nəs abstract N „having Adj quality‟

• redness, fearfulness, sugariness, slap-happiness

• But disagreement about criteria for inflection vs.

derivation

Productivity in morphology

• A central issue

• Interacts with assumptions about

– nature of morphological rules (bottom-up, top-down)

– function (create words, analyze existing words)

– what‟s in the lexicon

• Evidence for productivity in morphology

– “nonce formations” (application of rule to new forms)

• “In the description of a language‟s

morphological system, there is good

reason to include even the non-productive

rules. Even though they cannot be used

to derive novel words, they do

characterize a systematic relationship

among existing words, one which is

apprehended by speakers of the

language. Thus, even though –ical is not

productive, speakers of English plainly

recognize alphabetical as an adjective

based on alphabet.” p. 114

Productivity in syntax

• Productivity generally not an issue in syntax

– No exceptions to wh-movement

• Sentences are not stored

– created “on the fly”

– pieces like idioms are stored

• But Dative Shift lexically idiosyncratic – I gave the present to my brother.

– I gave my brother the present.

– I delivered the present to my brother.

– *I delivered my brother the present.

• So far in this class, no doubts about rule

productivity

– but with small problem sets, can‟t really tell

– in real life, productivity may be an issue

• „the question of how to judge formal word-

relatedness remains controversial to this day,

and with it, many issues pertaining to

phonological abstractness‟ (Odden 2005: 273)

– is a word‟s structure memorized (and also its

phonology)?

– or is it actively derived?

Productivity in phonology

Hayes‟ approach

• Productivity continuum in phonology, like

morphology

– Fully productive

– Less productive

• lexical exceptions

– small number

– moderate number

• morphological conditions in context

– Morpheme-specific alternation

– Lexicalized/lexically listed

Fully productive rules

• Hayes: Vowel nasalization

– V [+nasal] / ___ [+nasal]

– pen [pɛn]

– mountain [mãʊnʔn ] ~ [mãʊʔn ] • Aspiration

• /h/ deletion

– vehicle [|viǝkl ], vehicular [vi|hɩkjǝlr ]

“An almost fully productive rule”

• Postnasal /t/ Deletion

• t 0 / n ___ V

[-stress]

• winter, winner – careful (optional) [|wɪntɹ], [|wɪnɹ] – casual (obligatory) [|wɪnɹ] ([|wɪɾɹ]), [|wɪnɹ] ([|wɪɾɹ])

• intellectual – BH, SH: [nt], [n]

• intonation, cf. intone, antonym – BH, SH: [nt], *[n]

• intuition – BH: [nt], [n]

– SH: [nt], *[n] (cf. intuit)

Handling exceptions to rules

• intonation an exception to Postnasal /t/ Deletion?

• The rule may not be correctly formulated – Postnasal /t/ Deletion only applies before [ə]?

• Another rule may be obscuring

– Grimm‟s Law and Verner‟s Law

• Shorter, related forms somehow to blame

– intuit, intone

• The rule may not be productive

• “opinions in this area differ” (p. 194)

Major vs. minor rules

• Hayes‟ solution to exceptions

– Major rules can be blocked by [-R] • intonation, [-Postnasal t deletion]

– Minor rules triggered by [+R] • /loʊf/, [+/f/ Voicing]

“Lesser degrees of productivity”

• A minor rule

• /f/ Voicing

– /f/ [+voice] / ___ z]N, +pl

Need for morphological conditions

• Non-applicability in verbs

– loafs around, *loa[v]es around

• Non-applicability even in possessive

nouns

– loaf’s ([fs], *[vz]) wrapper

Exceptions to /f/ Voicing

Rule approach to /f/ Voicing

• /f/ Voicing as a minor rule

– applies only when triggered by [+R] in UR

– loaf

• /loʊf/, [+/f/ Voicing]

– oaf

• /oʊf/

– Numbers of undergoers/exceptions?

Lexical approach to /f/ Voicing

• “An alternative hypothesis would be to say

that we simply memorize all the plurals

that change /f/ to /v/ and store them in the

mental lexicon.” (p. 194)

Hayes‟ opinion

• “a phonological analysis is called for when the

alternation is productively extended to new

morphemes” (p. 203)

– historically, extended to dwarves (replacing earlier

plural dwarrows)

• Collect judgements from speakers via nonce-

probe study (or wug-test)

– [v] acceptable to some in: gulfs, chiefs, epitaphs

• Grammars may differ

Haspelmath and Sims‟ opinion

• 2 types of alternations

• Morphophonological (morphophonemic) alternations

„behave in ways that are typical of morphological

structure more generally‟

• Polish “First Palatalization”

• -yć (forms verbs), -ny (forms adj), -ek, -ka dim

• back-formed augmentatives

• back-formed augmentatives, undoing 1st Pal

ʃk

ʧk

x

• Haspelmath and Sims

• Variation in productivity „is a typical property of

affixes, but not of phonological rules‟

– „many linguists would say that only automatic

alternations are truly phonological, whereas

morphophonological alternations are really

morphological in nature‟

• Hayes ch. 8: „Morphophonemic analysis‟

Morpheme-specific alternation

• Hayes‟ example: Yidiny –du/ŋgu ergative

– -du / C___

– -ŋgu / V___

– wagal-du „wife‟

– mulari-ŋgu „initiated man‟

• Korean -i/ka nominative/subject

– -i / C___

– -ka / V___

– snsɛ-i „teacher‟ (nom.)

– kyosu-ka „professor‟ (nom.)

Approaches to morpheme-specific

alternation

• Hayes

– Yidiny ergative inflection

– X [+ergative] {XC XCdu

XV XVŋgu}

Another approach to morpheme-

specific alternation

• Kager 1996

• Multiple URs

– -/du/ [+ergative], -/ŋgu/ [+ergative]

• Phonology chooses

– [wa.gal.du] vs. [wa.gal.ŋgu] • choose [wa.gal.du] because no C clusters

– [mu.la.ri.du] vs. [mu.la.riŋ.gu] • choose [mu.la.riŋ.gu] because -/ŋgu/ is the

preferred ergative allomorph (because longer?)

Fully lexicalized alternations

• goose, geese

– moose, moose(s); noose, nooses; deuce,

deuces; use, uses

• mouse, mice; louse, lice

– grouse, grouses

Summary of approaches

Hayes Kager Haspelmath

and Sims

fully productive P P P (“automatic”)

exceptions,

morphological

conditions

P P M (“morpho-

phonemic”

morpheme-

specific

alternation

M P M

lexicalized M M M

And grammars may differ: /f/ Voicing may be a productive rule for some

speakers, lexicalized for others.